Thinking out of the box

[OldGreyEagle]

I took this to be a "Blue Sky" topic, as eisely called it, out of the box. During such enterprises there are generally ground rules, one of which is that everyone recognizes that a "Blue Sky" excercise is just that, an excercise and no idea is a bad one and no hints of reality is allowed. Just sit back and ponder "what ifs"...

 

No reason to give reasons why an idea wont work, just a place to throw in ideas and maybe something will coalace, and if it doesnt, it doesnt, but at least it was discussed

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Bob White]

So questions are not allowed as part of the "what if" thought process?

 

[John-in-KC]

Bob,

 

A question which helps develop the idea is one thing.

 

On another forum, I sometimes play the part of the cynic or the iconoclast. When I do, I explicity say WHY I propose to throw cold water on an idea.

 

Right now, it appears BSA uses established political jurisdictions to draw area boundaries. That may or may not be the right method of doing it. We have some councils which are geographically huge and population poor. We have other councils which are compact but have huge populations.

 

Establishing urban councils makes some sense. But, why not try to equalize the rural councils, such that each serves a more standardized number of youth and families?

 

BSA has at least five Council size groupings? Would redistributing assignments so each Council had a more uniform population help or hinder its service?

 

I don't know. I don't have all the answers, but my grad studies were in policy analysis. Finding the best bang for the buck is pretty darn important to a non-profit which has limited resources.

 

My thoughts.

[OldGreyEagle]

As conventions are different everywhere, I dont presume to know how others do Blue Sky, but I can give you how I was taught:

 

In a Blue Sky exercise there are no bad ideas, every suggestion is taken and written on the writing board. No idea gets to be disparged or the originator put down. if its uttered, its put up. Then, when the group doesnt have any more suggestions, the leader asks which ones do we want to work on, and then the group moves forward. But, the one thing I must emphasize is that discussion regarding the practicality of the situation is held off until the blue sky portion is done. As a group Forms, Storms, Norms, and Performs ideas that arent pratical arent attempted, but they are discussed.

[eisely]

BW,

 

To respond to your point, questions are allowed. To answer your earlier question as to how this would benefit BSA, the goal behind the idea is to make councils more effective. I think we all agree that the program is mostly delivered at the unit level. Councils have a variety of responsibilities in structuring and delivering the program. Would making councils compete for units push councils to become more effective? It certainly would force councils to listen more closely to the volunteers at the unit level.

[Lisabob]

OK here's my "Blue Sky" contribution:

What if we routinely realigned the councils, or at least the districts, every 10 years or so on the basis of census figures? Living as I do in an area that was until recently quite rural and now constitutes one of the fastest growing counties in the state, I see an antiquated council/district system that fails to provide structure and support for fast-growing areas, and over-supports areas that are no longer the main population centers within the council/districts. (In fact, we did go through a re-districting to address this a couple years ago, and you'd have thought someone was being murdered, listening to the hue and cry from some quarters. But I think it'll be a good long time before people are willing to go through that again, no matter what's actually happening with demographics on the ground.) The area I'm in borders three other councils - until recently we were so sparsely populated as to be uninteresting to them, but that's no longer the case. Times change, maybe council boundaries should too.

 

 

And here's my analysis of what I'm seeing unfold re: more flexible council and district boundaries (spoiler alert, I've been critical of an idea here):

 

This is an interesting idea and as some have mentioned, it happens in practicality at the edges of some councils, particularly rural areas. It is happening now in our council, in our district. One rural outpost of our council is actually a lot closer to the offices of the neighboring council than to our own. Up until a couple of years ago when redistricting hit us, this town was more or less over-looked too, and was worlds away from the "powers that were" in the district (let alone, in the council as a whole). I'd like to think that redistricting has meant an improvement in district and council services to units in that town, but bad impressions and experiences take a long time to overcome.

 

So, when the neighboring council started sniffing out potential COs in this town, they've had some luck. Not in getting "our" units to recharter with the other council, but rather in starting up new units that were chartered by the other council, and that compete with existing units for boys.

 

Since it is a small town, there really are not enough total available youth to support the existence of so many competing units and some will likely fold as a result.

 

Is this a good thing? Maybe, if the units that fold are the ones that run a weaker program and aren't really delivering the promise of scouting anyway. On the other hand, what I do worry about is that all units will remain anemic as they struggle for members, and that most of them might fold due to an inability to attain critical mass. That wouldn't be good, leaving few choices for scouts and their families. Not to mention the (existing and very real) bad feelings about "cannibalization" and "raiding" that have been created by this endeavor.

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

We come from differnt backgrounds I guess. What you call Blue Sky, I learned as Brain Storming. But for that process to take place you need to start with a open premise, one without a directed solution.

 

For instance where would you like to go camping this year, or what are ways we could increase service to units.

 

But if you were to say "what if we went camping at Yellowstone?", or "what if we had councils compete for units?", you have already passed the "Blue Sky" process and now you are looking at the pros and cons of a "directed discussion".

 

In Eisely's case he is putting forth a specific idea for as a possible solution from what would have come from a Blue Sky session on 'improving unit service'. But, how can you discuss it if you only provide possible benefits without looking at other aspects of the proposed idea as well? Just because a hurdle is offered does not mean the hurdle cannot be overcome. Hurdles are opportunities to show how the idea has strength.

 

I agree with every poster so far including OGE and Eisely that this is a discussion. Does asking questions not further the thought in a discussion?

[evmori]

Maybe break up councils by counties. Then break districts by school districts or municipalities. The school district I live in is a combination of three municipalities. If districts were divided by school districts, this could give more of a sense of community to the unit & local laws would apply more evenly if a council borders were the same as the county borders.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[skeptic]

I see two different things in this discussion. One is service at service centers; quality, availability of product, convenience for direct visit and so on. We do not appear to have a particular problem with this, as there seems to be a cooperative interaction between councils. Ordering items from a nearby center if not available locally, and them shipping to the local shop; advancement items filed locally and mailed to the other council, and so on.

 

The other element has more to do with the unit location itself, and its participation in its assigned council activities. Border line units often find themselves wanting to aline with the "closer" council, as they really are more a part of them than their own council, due to political boundaries and geographical constrictions. I could see there being a real rationale to allowing these units to affiliate with the council to which they better fit.

 

On the other hand, a troop in the center of a neighboring council's area that wanted to affiliate with the council next door, due to issues of some sort, would likely be better served to find a solution within their council, as it would be difficult to make it work.

 

Just some thoughts.

[epalmer84]

Perhaps this is the process the Girl Scouts went through when they decided to to restructure the 312 councils into 109 councils?

 

Ed

[hops_scout]

Ed, I hope you're not suggesting each individual county is its own council. You know how many councils we'd have? Now how do you plan to do Jamboree allocation? Philmont?

 

I can tell you in the county I live we'd be a real small council. And we're one of the fastest growing in the state and I believe in the country.

 

We'd have:

1 Venturing Crew

1 LDS Boy Scout Troop

4 Boy Scout Troops

Probably 7 or 8 Cub Scout packs

 

What about council properties? How do you intend to do that one?

 

 

 

[local1400]

To build on your comment Hops, how would you financially support such a small enterprise? If your Council/County has only 12 units, how much would your dues be just to heat the building?

[evmori]

Yup hops. By county. Small rural counties could be combined, but larger counties would be stand alones.

[eisely]

I would think that going to the county level would be way too small. If I am not mistaken BSA has been consolidating councils for several years now.

 

It is my observation that councils and districts do follow political boundaries. In our council in a mostly suburban area some districts are based on municipal boundaries.

 

To elaborate a bit about my core suggestion, what I would have in mind is that a unit could periodically, upon re chartering, choose to charter with a different council, most likely a council adjoining the unit's current council. A unit would have to choose carefully because it would have to live with its decision for a period of years, maybe five years. There would have to be some kind process established and a unit might be required to lay out the reasons for its choice.

 

To a certain extent, units already avail themeselves of opportunities that are "out of council" such as summer camp. I know that we routinely get scouters from nearby councils showing up at our district training events.

 

Last year the people in charge of our district camporee scheduled it for the weekend of Mother's Day. Our troop, among many others, went "out of district" for camporee and the boys want to do the same thing this year.

 

Maybe allowing units to change councils should be combined with a prohibition against going "out of council" for various things.

[Bob White]

Would the same thing work in a similar situation?

What if cities could decide which State they wanted to recieve services from?